The Deadliest Warrior: Rajput vs Roman?

[civfanatic]

"Turkey is famous for its cavalry, Kandahar for its elephants, and India for its armies"

This quote is wrong. I remember reading this.Its was like Arabs for its Calvary...cant remember the middle but wasn't about elephants.....and India for it armies. Its was quote by some ancient Arab scholar.

The only part of the quote I really care about is the last part :special26:


If you can find the exact quote and the person who said it, feel free to post it, as I am too lazy to do so myself.

 

[Iamanidiot]

The Chinese in the ming period fielded armies which were gigantic 4 million~3 million in size.The indians were feudal levies ,untrained and the rajpts neither had strategic foresight nor tactics

 

[Shaitan]

The indians were feudal levies

Ya even in the Mughal era they really didn't care about infantry(fun its like modern India). They would have a HUGE number of levies, but relayed on cannons, Calvary, elephants.. Mings also had a HUGE number of levies too. Mings also were true masters of using gunpower.. Look up many of their creative creations..

 

[gogbot]

Ya even in the Mughal era they really didn't care about infantry(fun its like modern India). They would have a HUGE number of levies, but relayed on cannons, Calvary, elephants.. Mings also had a HUGE number of levies too. Mings also were true masters of using gunpower.. Look up many of their creative creations..

Ming had many innovative idea's but not very effective. When Compared to Cannons or muskets

Things like the pole gun are just un-practical , and arrows with rockets on them difficult to aim.
But to their credit they did come up with the world first Booby trap explosive or landmine.

 

[Param]

The Chinese in the ming period fielded armies which were gigantic 4 million~3 million in size.The indians were feudal levies ,untrained and the rajpts neither had strategic foresight nor tactics

How could all of them have been untrained ? Almost all regions in India had martial castes and they used to regularly train to maintain their edge.
BTW chinese numbers have often been exaturated. I found this in Wiki _ "At its peak Cholan army is said to have two million soldiers fighting for their Kingdom at many fronts simultaneously". So probably we too had huge armies.

 

[civfanatic]

How could all of them have been untrained ? Almost all regions in India had martial castes and they used to regularly train to maintain their edge.
BTW chinese numbers have often been exaturated. I found this in Wiki _ "At its peak Cholan army is said to have two million soldiers fighting for their Kingdom at many fronts simultaneously". So probably we too had huge armies.

Even Mauryan standing army was said to be 600,000 infantry 30,000 cavalry and 9,000 elephants.

And that was just the standing army, not mobilized.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The Chinese in the ming period fielded armies which were gigantic 4 million~3 million in size.The indians were feudal levies ,untrained and the rajpts neither had strategic foresight nor tactics

look at the numbers that are claimed to have been in the Mahabharat armies, I have seen number upto 40 million and higher. This looking at it from historical angle then strictly the religious angle. The battle and numbers maybe difficult to verify but I have seen blogs with even higher numbers like below.

http://anandatirtha.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/the-number-killed-in-the-mahabharata/

 

[Iamanidiot]

Indian population would have been 10-20 million in 1000B.C

 

[SHASH2K2]

look at the numbers that are claimed to have been in the Mahabharat armies, I have seen number upto 40 million and higher. This looking at it from historical angle then strictly the religious angle. The battle and numbers maybe difficult to verify but I have seen blogs with even higher numbers like below.

http://anandatirtha.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/the-number-killed-in-the-mahabharata/

You are right. If mahabharata is true then in history of mankind there has never been a bigger Army and its bloodiest of all battles. Technology is also far more superior to what we have now.

 

[civfanatic]

Indian population would have been 10-20 million in 1000B.C

According to India's first census, which was conducted around 250 B.C. by Ashoka, the Mauryan Empire (India + Pakistan and Afghanistan) had a population of around 50 million.

In comparison, most historians believe that at that time, the entire world population was around 150 million, of whom 50m lived in India, 50m in China, and 50m in all other areas of the world.
Remember that in those times, the only "intensive" agriculture took place in India, China, and the Middle East.

 

[Shaitan]

Mahabharat numbers were most likely over numbered too. It was like a world war in Bharat, but still...

 

[Shaitan]

Indians do me a favor and vote for the rajput in the deadliest warrior game here

http://www.spike.com/blog/which-warrior-should/97457

 

[bhramos]

I voted for Rajput..................
enjoy your game............

 

[SHASH2K2]

I Voted for Rajputs.

 

[Flint]

Rajputs were indeed very passionate warriors. However, in terms of organization and strategy, the Romans were much more effective. Imperial Rome unmatched.

In Indian terms, I think the armes of South India - especially the Cholas, later the Nayakas, the armies of Kerala, were very well organized and effective. Much more so, I feel, than the armies of Central and North India.

But of course, the Mughals were also highly organized. They relied on developments occurring in the Islamic world at the time, and were generally miles ahead of any other Indian army during their heyday.

 

[utubekhiladi]

i agree with what flint have said

 

[S.A.T.A]

If it was head to head between the Romans and the Rajputs,given the conditions being the same,Rajputs should have their nose ahead.Roman army,while it did have cavalry units,was by and large a infantry dominated system.Roman legions used used the short double edged sword,cavalry used a longer version called spatha,which,coupled with Roman emphasis on close knit line formation and heavy armour,was deadly and could cut down any opposition infantry.But they had weakness against Shock cavalry,which is exactly what Rajput Cavalry was.Rajput cavalry,heavily armoured and carrying a Rajput armed with long thrusting spears,was a menace for any infantry and the Rajput cavalry could easily have run down any Roma legion with their long spear,even before the legions came close enough to engage in combat.Because the Roma legions were heavily armored,even a retreat against a mobile Rajput cavalry would have been a disaster.

 

[warriorextreme]

i dont have much respect for rajputs..
they helped moughals..
i support marathas..maratha empire was started by chatrapati shivaji maharj and then peshawas became army leaders of maratha empire..they had the biggest Hindu empire...who can forget peshwa bajirao the first who never lost a battle in his life...

 

[Tolaha]

I dont have a view on the "deadliest" warrior as I am unable to find a suitable technique to compare!

However, if it was the most "effective" warrior, it should be more easily quantified. The effective warriors would be the one who had built an empire and not a kingdom; managed to subjugate people belonging other religion/language/culture for an extended period of time in history. So my vote goes for the Romans!


Ofcourse, having said that, I dont have any qualms in voting for the Rajputs at the site mentioned by JacobtheIndoAmerican! :emot180:

 

[Tolaha]

i dont have much respect for rajputs..
they helped moughals..
i support marathas..maratha empire was started by chatrapati shivaji maharj and then peshawas became army leaders of maratha empire..they had the biggest Hindu empire...who can forget peshwa bajirao the first who never lost a battle in his life...

Biggest Hindu empire! Are you sure?
BTW the Maratha army had a significant number of Muslim soldiers/generals.